Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 16
CSPAN 5
CSPAN2 4
MSNBC 4
FBC 3
CNN 1
CNNW 1
KGO (ABC) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
WUSA (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 45
Search Results 0 to 44 of about 45 (some duplicates have been removed)
deficits for as far as the eye can see. washington has got a spending problem, not a revenue problem. if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he's got an obligation to families and small businesses to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> you did speak with the president earlier this week. can you characterize that call? did he have any kind of count offer and we understand that he is making clear that it's got to be increase rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit? >> the phone call was pleasant but was more of the same. the conversations that the staff had yesterday were more of the same. it's time for the president if he's serious to come back to was a count offer. >> the jobs record indicated unemployment is down roughly a full point from this time last year. [inaudible] [inaudible] why take such a risk when the job numbers are improving. >> because increasing tax rates will hit many small businesses that produce 60 to 70%
for washington to face, they do talk about the deficit and the debt in getting the fiscal house in order. that is not the full extent of the list. but behind different as we talk about priorities along partisan and racial lines. let's start with where we are and with the public has been pounded with this message week after we, on the question of resolving the immediate fiscal cliff. how would you describe your temperature, your feeling that there will be some kind of accommodation and a deal even on the tax and spending and sequester side or both? >> good morning. glad to be with you and give you my perspective on where we are. to the beginning of your question, i often say one i am giving remarks that -- people in the same group, no matter how ponce and they are, people -- no matter how partis and they are, people will say two things. i want you to go to washington and stand on your principal. i want you to fight for us. i say, i will. someone else will get up and say, i want you to compromise and find the middle ground and get things done. this is the 10th time this just happen to me.
money, and then on everybody else. not so he can lower the debt or the deficit, but so he can spend to his heart's content. for months, the president has been saying that all he wanted to raise taxes on the top 2% so he can tackle the debt and the deficit. however, yesterday, he finally revealed that that is not really is true intent. by demanding the power to raise the debt limit whenever he wants, by as much as he wants, he showed what he is really after is assuming unprecedented power to spend taxpayer dollars without any limit at all. this is not about getting a handle on deficits or debt or him. it is about spending even more than he already has. why else would you demand the power to raise the debt limit on his own? by the way, why on earth would we consider giving a president who has brought us four years of trillion dollar unchecked deficits of 30 to borrow? he is the last person who should have borrowing power. the only way we will cut spending around here is by using the debate over the debt limit to do it. now the president wants to remove that to cut all together. of cou
to the labour party. they want to be in government and they claim they want to cut the deficit. what would they cut? what would they cut? if they object to the local government settlement and the object to the defense settlement and the objective the nhs budget and the object to the education budget, even though nhs schools are going up, and what exactly would they do? the problem is as was evident from the shadow chancellor's response, they didn't have anything to say on these matters but if they had a credible deficit plan then we would listen to the questions they ask us about the priorities of those plans. >> john stephenson. >> this cools and colleges of 270 million are extremely welcome. schools and colleges such as those in my constituency plans on the runway ready to take off, just in a little additional financial support. will the chancellor help those colleges and schools? >> i'm very happy to look personally at the case my honorable friend makes for his local education facility. these are of course other government departments but we have provided the money for education, for ne
, we are talking about deficit deduction. we are talking about raising revenue to a level in which can begin to support the kinds of investments we need to make to train our future work force and to create an environment in which we can care for the elderly. >> the think americans will remain optimistic but this did of the economy? if we have not tackle the things we have just talked about like the cost of education, the housing market? we are figuring out some philosophical issues about taxing and funding? >> i think the economy has been growing slowly and steadily all in the absence of any movement, which we have seen over the test of the last year. i have worked on guantanamo for the past 10 years. my sense is that if there is some movement until the positive direction, which have not seen out of washington and enter a long time, -- in a long time, at least we will not see head winds. we are making some progress. i see that continue. >> i want to come back to what todd said earlier. i am concerned about confidence being fragile. todd reference what happened until august of 2011. we
the kinds of revenue from the wealthiest americans to help the economy grow and achieve deficit reduction and this puts us on a path towards a better economy. >> [inaudible question] what will he do at this moment? >> i would simply redirect that question to the republican leaders, who to this day, have not put forward any proposal on how they would achieve revenues and address the issue on the top 2%. there is no other way to do it, there is no other mathematically sound way to do it. making vague promises about achieving revenue through capping deductions were closing loopholes, it simply doesn't add up to a serious proposal. we haven't heard which deductions they would cap or which loopholes they were close. what is true is that other proposals that have been put forward include attempts to raise revenue only through closing loopholes and limited deductions can only achieve this if the middle class gets stuck with the bill. or if you have a proposal that is wildly limply unfeasible because it suggests that we would wipe out charitable deductions. it is simply impossible and getting som
the deficit, create jobs. so we know we have to have growth. we know we have to make cuts. we know we have to have revenue. you can't get from here to there without it. so if you read closely what they have in their letter, even though it's bare bones, you have voucher rising of medicare, you have a return to the ryan budget, which priorities are not priorities that i think the american people share. >> rates, can there be a deal done with the rates not going up? >> no. i'm an appropriator for a long time in the congress. we used to have an expression. it's not the price. it's the money. this is not to be punitive on the people who make over $250,000. it's just to be fair to the entire country. you need that additional revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to make investments in growth. >> if speaker boehner says that, you know, we're not going to move on the rates, where are we? >> i hope that's just a bargaining position. but the fact is we have talked about it two step. do a down payment on cuts, on investments and on revenue this year and then in the next year, take the t
it in building a good, solid farm bill which actually found $23 billion in savings towards the deficit. we did it in passing a strong highway bill that will strengthen our nation's infrastructure. and we did it most recently this week in working through a large and complex defense authorization bill that will keep our nation safer and more secure in these perilous times. it will take more of this kind of cooperation and consensus building to address the very real and substantial challenges facing our nation today. that is why i'm deeply concerned about a proposal floated recently by some members of the majority regarding the rules of the senate. they propose to change the nearly 100-year-old senate rule that requires a two-thirds majority to change the operating rules of the senate. our colleagues in the majority are proposing to use a simple majority vote to make the change. that's the issue here. the issue is the manner in which they plan to do it. once the precedent of changing a rule with a simple majority vote is established, 51 senators could change the rules to suit their own convenienc
us with the deficit of one. that is the deficit. sizable it is. this will be the president's fourth for which he is personally responsible, fourth deficit in excess of a trillion dollars. president obama wants to plug that trillion dollars hole by raising taxes on household incomes, as we all know that have incomes over $250,000. the top 2%. that would bring in $802 million, $82 billion. that'sbout 8% of that deficit. so does that suggt we have a tax problem or, perhaps, a spending problem? think about this taxpayers making more than $250,000 representing the top 2% paid more than 46% f all texas. that would seem like a pretty fair deal to most of us, but the president says it is not fair. we don't know what that number is. how much should it be? and contrary to what the president would have you believe as he campaigns untack sites all around the country and against the wealthy, he's doing a lot of that. the bush tax rates are not the root of our problems. in fact, individual tax payments rose, get this, $2,303,000,000,000 or 26%. over the past two ears. under those very low unshare
to the deficit. it's just irresponsible to even put social security in a discussion as we are trying to get a deal. medicare can, i think, be massaged in terms of means testing. with the upper income individuals paying more or sometimes all of their medical expenses, it makes no sense for the government to pay medicare costs for someone earning $700,000 a year. so i think we can do some means testing. but by no means am i saying it should be low enough so our elderly and poorist americans are going to pay for the deficit. but we want a deal. and keep in mind, i think this is very important. if the bush tax cuts are expired, as they will be, just as sure as today is friday, they are gone, that generates $950 billion toward the deficit over a ten-year period. we'd set aside $1.2 trillion. we're almost there. and if you do means testing on medicare, we make it. >> well, the republicans would never go along with that kind of means testing because that would hit the wealthier americans. that's who they are going to protect. how would that work out? >> what i would hope is if republicans fight a
the tax rate hike that he wanted, understand that we would continue to see trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. listen, washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. and if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he has an obligation to families and small businesses, to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> speaker, you spoke with the president earlier this week. can you characterize this call? if he called, did he have any kind of counteroffer? and also, we understand that he's just making clear that it's got to be increase in rates for the wealthy or no deal. are you willing to give a little bit, maybe just not all the way to 39.6? >> it was -- the phone call was pleasant but was just more of the same. the conversation that the staff had yesterday, just more of the same. it's time for the president, if he's serious, to come back to us with a counteroffer. >> mr. speaker, the jobs report today indicated unemployment is down roug
for the american people that extends tax cuts to the american people. brings our long-term deficits down. tough spending savings is part of that, and invest in things that matter to the american economy, like infrastructure, and getting americans back to work. we think we can do that. we have a good chance, and it's very important. and i think we'll get there, david. >> do you think we'll get a deal by the end of the year? >> i do. because the only thing standing in the way of that is a refusal by republicans to accept that rates have to go up on the wealthiest americans. and i don't really see them doing that. >> the idea that they have signalled something significant for them, which is -- >> what is that? >> putting revenue on the table. >> it's welcome that they are recognizing that revenues are going to have to go up. but they haven't told us anything about how far rates should go up, how far revenues should go up, who should pay higher taxes. >> republicans have said that no republicans will vote for a tax rate increase. do you think they are just bluffing? >> i can't tell you what they ar
in washington negotiate a bad deal on the bucket and deficit, what do you think will happen to medicare and medicaid benefits. >> it stars two senator and two republican reps. cnn reports the labor unions are spending more than a half of million dollars on this round of spots. we're back with more steph after the break. stay with us. ♪ going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. [♪ theme music ♪] >> stephanie: okay. and as we mentioned, unemployment numbers. hello! [ ♪ patriotic music ♪ ] >> stephanie: the lowest in four years. >> wow! >> stephanie: it has dropped to 7.7%. >> you're welcome america, i did that. >> no, you didn't. >> stephanie: right. [ applause
benefits to help reduce the other deficits. >> to be clear that's one thing that's clearly off the table. social security is off the tables in these negotiations. >> in a separate process to strengthen social security not as a process to reduce the deficit. >>> on the issues of taxes, is there any flexibility on the president's position? does it have to go all the way back to the tax rates on the wealthy to the clinton levels? >> again, george, we think the best way to do this is to have those tax rates go back to where and one of the best, at one of the most prosperous times in recent american history to combine that reforms that limit reductions for 2%, i'm deeply skeptical about ways to get through this without that mix of rates and reforms. >> and if congress doesn't agree, you're comfortable going over that cliff on january 1st? >> there's no reason why 98% of americans have to see their taxes go up because some members of congress on the republican side want to block tax rate increase for 2% of the wealthy americans. remember, those tax cuts cost a trillion dollars over ten years.
't think any credible economist will tell you we can simply cut our way out of the current deficits and debt. we need new revenues, and where should they come from? should they come from a middle class or working families that have really struggled or had setbacks in the last decade, or should it come from families that have done very well and can be asked to do more? if you look at the prosperity we enjoyed during the clinton administration when the tax rates were higher on upper income families, that certainly didn't kill economic growth. we have incredible economic growth during the clinton years. this same, tired argument that we hear time and time again that any kind of tax increase on anyone will hurt the economy, it isn't borne out by history. >> there are analysts that say both of these proposals are essentially for the base, and na in reality both sides know you'll come to the middle. you have johnny isakson who said earlier there's too much posturing going on here. what is your response that in relation the proposal from the white house and the president as well as from sp
revenue. as i've indicated, the only way to get the kind of revenue for a balanced deficit reduction plan is to make sure that we're also modestly increasing rates for people who can afford it. folks like me. just to be clear, i'm not going to sign any package that somehow prevents the top rate from going up for folks at the top 2%. >> the concerted effort from the white house is very clear. here's white house press secretary jay carney. >> what will produce a deal is an acknowledgement by republicans, republican leaders, that rates on the top 2%, the wealthiest americans, have to rise. there is no deal without that acknowledgement, and without a concrete, mathematically sound proposal -- >> but speaker boehner still insists he can get the revenue without raising rates? >> now, the revenues we're putting on the table are going to come from guess who? the rich. there are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes, and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax rates, which we believe will harm our economy. >> some conservatives just can't stan
social security is not connected to the deficit. a separate program, funded separately in the own trust fund. that needs to be dealt with separately. with regard to medicare and medicaid, those programs are floating on the overall inflation rate in healthcare. what we need to do, this is a major part of the affordable healthcare act was to bend the cost curve to bridge down the inflation rate in healthcare. in fact, in the last two year years, the inflation rate in medicare has been remarkably low. much to the surprise of everybody. some in the two or 3% range. that is incredible. part of that is due to the affordable healthcare act. undoubtedly to others. with regard to the doctor payments, that is an annual problem here in washington. started back in the early 2000s. continued to be an annual problem. called the doctor fix. i guess for budgeting reasons, way back when they decided that they would only fund that increase in doctor payments for one year. then every year it comes up. every year it grows because of the general inflation in healthcare. it needs to be fixed permanently as p
it is not that we have authorized the spending of the money, we just don't have the money. we're running a deficit of $25 billion every week. and we don't have it. we will run right into the debt ceiling. >> this will be revisited next week. when we come back, trouble hot spots. syria and egypt. >>> issue two. syrian nightmare. >> i want to make it absolutely clear to assad and those under his command. the world is watching. the use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. and if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable. >> president obama this week warned the president of syria, bashar al-assad not to use syria's chemical weapons against his own people. rebel syrians are waging an offensive against other syrians, largely assad's government forces. unnamed u.s. officials say that syria has even gone so far as to load the precursor ingredients of sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into the aerial bombs. whether this activity is to protect the chemicals from advancing rebel forces, or for assad to actually use them again
for raising revenues, cutting spending and reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years. he said the ball is in the g.o.p.'s court. >> you have heard them for the first time i think in two decades they are willing to have revenues go up to make a balanced plan but they have to tell you what they want do on rates and revenues. >> he says there is no plan to an agreement unless they acknowledge tax rates have to go up for the wealthiest americans. >> heather: thank you very much. with less than one month to reach a deal there is new urgency to reach a deal. coming up our political panel will debate the zik go points. >> brand-new reaction today from the potential nominee of u.n. ambassador susan rice to be the next secretary of state. a senator reiterating concerns about statements she made following the benghazi attack that left four americans dead. in the meantime, clare mccaskill came to the ambassador's defense. >> she had reviewed the dpeor foer going. >> on sunday shows and went well beyond the talking points, we have decimated al-qaeda, that was nowhere on the talking points
know, one thing is we take a huge bite out of the deficit. we do it in a crude may, and there would be immediate attempts to fix it and fine-tune it and take some back. some would probably get through. if you actually want to look at it from a policy standpoint, it may not be the worst possible option to just go over the cliff and then put back in the tax cuts and the spending increases or renewals that you'd like to put back in. so, you know, worst things could happen. >> well, listen, alan simpson and i go back to his sound from the "today" show, eugene. he said anyone talking about it in that way, there's stupidity involved. he didn't say, eugene, you better not because you're my buddy, but the reality is even our first read team says this notion or all of this media hype about going off the cliff from some of our colleagues is overstated. to their point a deal is in sight, that's why boehner and the president spoke yesterday. it's a matter of how big. will they separate the tax cuts from a larger needed plan later down the road? i guess what you folks in d.c. like to call "kicki
and there should be the maximum spending cuts possible. i think that is not just true for the affect on the deficit, but because the deficit is being monatized at this point in time through quantitative easing it can result in great h greater inflation down the road. he would have thought this is not a time to raise taxes, this is a time to cut government spending. we don't want to have a larger government deficit and this is the course that would lead to the greatest prosperity in the economy. he would not have agreed that if we go over the fiscal cliff that that would have a negative impact on the economy, he would say rather that by bringing the deficit down, by having the prospect of lower inflation in the future, that will be good for interest rates and that would be good for the economy in the coming years. jenna: what would he say to those american citizens, though, that say, listen, over the fiscal cliff, i'm afraid of that, i don't even want to entertain the possibilities of what that would look like. >> i think when it comes to issues such as the extension of unemployment benefits, social
that reduced the deficit to avoid the fiscal cliff. we should not put off hard decisions of gimmicks or with triggers. that's what got us here in the first place. it's time to bite the bullet and make the tough decisions and make them now. the first thing we should do is immediately and permanently extend a middle-class tax cut. this will provide needed certainty to america's families and businesses and markets. this decisive action will ensure that millions of american families don't see attacks like of more than $2000 starting next month. in year-end agreement must also have a long-term extension of the debt ceiling. america cannot afford another debilitating to school showdown. it has to be a package deal. then we need to enact a long-term and comprehensive deficit solution. most serious plans recommend about $4 trillion deficit reduction over 10 years to restore fiscal balance. the budget control act banks about 1 billion. bringing our troops home from iraq and afghanistan saves another 800 billion. that's real savings. it should be counted. interest savings provide another 600 b
% of the budget. and you're leaving the parts of the budget that blow a hole in the deficit and destroy this economy over the next 20 years. >> by the way, we won't go over the cliff for all the reasons we're talking about. even if we do, my friends on the street tell me, it's not a disaster. it's baked in. because we're going to get it done even after the fact. so you're talking about a few points in the market. >>> we're just moments away, joe and i will be removing -- >> oh, no! there it is! >> ow! >> it's all for a great cause. >> i don't know if it's that good. >> i don't know. is this going to be good television or kind of yucky? okay. we'll be right back. americans are always ready to work hard for a better future. since ameriprise financial was founded back in 1894, they've been committed to putting clients first. helping generations through tough times. good times. never taking a bailout. there when you need them. helping millions of americans over the centuries. the strength of a global financial leader. the heart of a one-to-one relationship. together for your future. ♪ ♪
we have here, the real driver of budget deficits, the real threat to american economics, superiority in this world, out of control-- the president of the united states, the president for four yea years, no credible plan for tackling that spending. >> dave: there's been nothing put on paper when it comes to entitlements from the president one thing he's been afraid to do. now he's been reelected don't be afraid to face the voters. tack tackle entitlement and changes to survive. >> alisyn: isn't that the beauty of the second term. incumbency you're no longer bo ho holden to anyone. >> and that 1.6 trillion dollar. before 800 billion and now it's 1.6 trillion. maybe that's the second term speaking. >> alisyn: let's talk about what's going on with the christmas tree. as you know, it's christmas season and that means that there will be incidents where the p.c. police are out in force, checking and calling your tree, a holiday tree or a christmas tree and this has. this is brewing in massachusetts because the mayor of a small town, well, a city in massachusetts, a small river had invited r
by more if you are going to deal with the deficit. >> that's what you are saying or taxes on the middle class have to go up at some point. i am not sure. you say you counted whether republicans would vote for it. i am not sure that's accept am in the democratic caucus. >> if it's acceptable to obama, it will pass the senate. no one has to worry about that. if it's acceptable -- if john boehner and barack obama cut a deal, it will pass the senate and the house no matter what nancy pelosi wants. >> i disagree with that. >> we have agreed so far on almost everything so. >> not here to necessarily agree. >> not 95, '96, gingrich who could dictate. if john boehner did which was walk into the caucus and say accept this or i am leaving, they will say bye. same thing with obama. the democratic caucus thinks they have the leverage >> bill: 20 minutes. here stan collender lendcollender. i am going to ask you about apple announcing that they are going to have a whole new line of computer manufacturing in the united states and what that means leading up to the job
that actually reduces our deficit. i'm willing to work with anyone to put a plan on the table, but we're not willing to negotiate with someone who hasn't put a plan on the table. the president has not put a serious plan on the table. >> as far as a compromise on the marginal tax rate 35% going up let's say 36% or 37%, is that acceptable? >> no. no. because marginal tax rate increases if there is any increase in revenue, just gives them more to play with on capitol hill and more to spend. when we talk about fairness, when the top 2%, the $250,000 and above are already paying 45% of total income tax, that's a big question of fairness there too. >> who should nicki haley name to replace you? >> i talk today her today. i share the same philosophy, the conservative philosophy. i told her i trust her decision and i'm not going to push her one way or another. >> a lot of speculation, congressman scott? >> he's a wonderful person. our whole delegation is really strong. she's got a tough choice, but i'm convinced she'll give me someone as good or better than i am i can pass the torch to. and i
Search Results 0 to 44 of about 45 (some duplicates have been removed)